I'd like to thank the CIA and NSA for their incompetence in this matter -- if they were properly vetting their employees/contractors we would not know the depths of surveillance that each and every citizen of the world is a target of.

The CIA had intelligence that Bin Laden would perform the 9/11 attacks but was forbidden from sharing that information with the FBI so they could do something about it. The men on the planes that flew into the buildings were on terrorist watch lists. The Tsarnev family was recommended for further investigation in 2011 as a potential terrorist threat. Nothing was done.

That's why this whole privacy violation scandal by the NSA is so painful for me.. we have plenty of information. We always have. The problem we had (and still have today) is that we can't seem to stop the genital waving contest and bureaucracy long enough to actually share meaningful information to keep Americans safe.

Oh but trust us, lack of information is the real problem, says about every single US government agency.

Very interesting. Snowden gets a pass because his supervisor failed to enforce the rules (with TS-SCI any thing like accessing unauthorized files is supposed to get you in some trouble). And Bradley Manning got a free pass and kept his clearance because his supervisors and commanders failed to follow regulations.

Standard bureaucratic incompetence. Though the CIA did mange to shift the blame upon the NSA's failure to request Snowden's personnel file. I wonder where the buck will stop on the next go around in the blame-game. I'd guess it's probably on the contractor who hired him, even though it was the NSA that failed to vet their contractors' hires.

I would send a combined commando CIA/Mossad to arrest this fugitive no matter what. It was clear since the begging that this kind of breach could only happen due incompetence and negligence from the US intelligence community

I'd like to thank the CIA and NSA for their incompetence in this matter -- if they were properly vetting their employees/contractors we would not know the depths of surveillance that each and every citizen of the world is a target of.

More evidence that Snowden's efforts were premeditated espionage, and not motivated by the public good. He could have made good immediately with the information from the CIA - but instead, he persisted, gathering more information, secretly, trying to build a cache that he could use to manipulate the public in ways that would benefit him personally. Else, why quit his job at the CIA and take a higher paying one as a contractor? Certainly not for ethical reasons.

He actively worked to position himself in a place where he could get information he could use to damage the US's FCI efforts. The more I learn about this guy, the less I believe he shouldn't be sent to prison.

... we have plenty of information. We always have. The problem we had (and still have today) is that we can't seem to stop the genital waving contest and bureaucracy long enough to actually share meaningful information to keep Americans safe...

Righteous genitals only want to be free, not burdened with civil rights and the press up your...nose.

More evidence that Snowden's efforts were premeditated espionage, and not motivated by the public good. He could have made good immediately with the information from the CIA - but instead, he persisted, gathering more information, secretly, trying to build a cache that he could use to manipulate the public in ways that would benefit him personally. Else, why quit his job at the CIA and take a higher paying one as a contractor? Certainly not for ethical reasons.

He actively worked to position himself in a place where he could get information he could use to damage the US's FCI efforts. The more I learn about this guy, the less I believe he shouldn't be sent to prison.

No, this was explained in the article. The information that he gathered in the CIA would have damaged individuals. Working as a contractor gave him information on illegal (!!!) systems that could and should be shared. That is why Congress have now been doing something about abuses. Please do try to keep up.

"He said it was during his CIA stint in Geneva that he thought for the first time about exposing government secrets. But, at the time, he chose not to for two reasons.

First, he said: "Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn't feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone." Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary.

He left the CIA in 2009 in order to take his first job working for a private contractor that assigned him to a functioning NSA facility, stationed on a military base in Japan. It was then, he said, that he "watched as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in," and as a result, "I got hardened."

I guess he forgot the detail that he got caught trying to do it and was sent home was the reason.

I wonder why Snowden wants to omit certain things dealing with his persona? The guy can't even be honest with his fan-boy hero worshipers.

Now we know why he left the CIA job and went to work for a private contractor.

Seems like that sort of behavior (peeking) would be common for many people in his prior position. If you give someone the keys to the kingdom, or easy ways of copying/borrowing the keys, it is human nature to poke around. Telling the rest of us what he found is when he grew a pair of brass balls.

More evidence that Snowden's efforts were premeditated espionage, and not motivated by the public good. He could have made good immediately with the information from the CIA - but instead, he persisted, gathering more information, secretly, trying to build a cache that he could use to manipulate the public in ways that would benefit him personally. Else, why quit his job at the CIA and take a higher paying one as a contractor? Certainly not for ethical reasons.

He actively worked to position himself in a place where he could get information he could use to damage the US's FCI efforts. The more I learn about this guy, the less I believe he shouldn't be sent to prison.

I guess I'm not there yet. As far as I can tell his releases have been confirmations about what we've already known.

1) Gov't siphons internet traffic and has little to no transparency about how it's used.2) Gov't siphons phone traffic and has little to no transparency about how it's used.3) We conduct intelligence gathering on our allies. (As they do on us).

The only questions for me is if what he did creates real change or if he ends up as just a footnote in history?

"He said it was during his CIA stint in Geneva that he thought for the first time about exposing government secrets. But, at the time, he chose not to for two reasons.

First, he said: "Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn't feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone." Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary."

I guess he forgot the detail that he got caught trying to do it was the real reason.

You're implying that Snowden knew that he had been flagged/identified by the CIA as a potential source for disclosing information, that he understood/believed his departure from Geneva was (in whole or in part) related to this specific reason, and "forgot"/neglected to mention as much during interviews that approached this matter. I could be wrong, but nothing in this article or the referenced article in the New York Times suggests as much.

If true (and I take it with a rather large block of salt), I almost wonder if the CIA actually decided NOT to disclose this on purpose. Almost as if they knew the NSA was far overreaching itself, and that his actions were for the greater good rather than those actions of the NSA's.

Either way, the government seems to be painting Snowden as more a patsy of theirs with every passing day. A patsy that ended up backfiring on them in a bad way.

"He said it was during his CIA stint in Geneva that he thought for the first time about exposing government secrets. But, at the time, he chose not to for two reasons.

First, he said: "Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn't feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone." Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary."

I guess he forgot the detail that he got caught trying to do it was the real reason.

You're implying that Snowden knew that he had been flagged/identified by the CIA as a potential source for disclosing information, that he understood/believed his departure from Geneva was (in whole or in part) related to this specific reason, and "forgot"/neglected to mention as much during interviews that approached this matter. I could be wrong, but nothing in this article or the referenced article in the New York Times suggests as much.

I'm not implying anything, i'm flat out saying it. There are more information sources than this article or the New York Times article. He was caught trying to break into files he did not have access to. That's why he was sent home from Geneva, for trying to exceed his access authorizations. That's why he did not gather that information, not the noble sounding 'Obama' excuse he gave, he did not gather that information because he was sent home from Geneva because he got caught (or 'suspected', which for classified information is the same as being caught at it because you still get removed from the position most times). Its a common thing for government agencies to remove an employee from a position when they break the rules, the more critical the rule broken the more likely it is for the person to get removed from the position. When it comes to classified information and trying to exceed authorized access they remove the person from the position as precautionary because its an integrity issue that they can't keep out of areas for which they are not authorized. In this case the only thing they could do was send him home from Geneva because there was no other position in Geneva they could have used him. They simply sent him home and replaced him with someone else. He wasn't anything special or a "spy", he was a common garden variety employee among thousands that work for the CIA. I'll also bet the reason he left the CIA after that and went to work for a private contractor was to escape the scrutiny of an investigation into his activity and he knew that was going to happen (and such a possible investigation was lightly referenced in a previous article here, its also been referenced in other places in the past also). He knew that it was policy for the CIA to review and investigate obvious access authorizations violations, he knew it would take some time for that to happen, and he knew that they would probably less likely to investigate what was seen at the time as an infraction that did not result in actual theft or unauthorized disclosure if he was no longer employed by the CIA. Thus the reason he left the CIA and went to work for a private contractor to continue his premeditated espionage (to which he has admitted publically by the way).

If true (and I take it with a rather large block of salt), I almost wonder if the CIA actually decided NOT to disclose this on purpose. Almost as if they knew the NSA was far overreaching itself, and that his actions were for the greater good rather than those actions of the NSA's.

Either way, the government seems to be painting Snowden as more a patsy of theirs with every passing day. A patsy that ended up backfiring on them in a bad way.

/conspiracy theory

So, your theory is that the CIA let him go to reign in the NSA's abuse? For starters, it doesn't seem that they knew his intent was to leak to the public, and thus create this debate. Secondly, I doubt they wanted national intelligence agencies to come under fire. I could see them doing this on purpose, but I would think it was more a 'Fuck the NSA' choice due to rivalry than some convoluted move to benefit the public.

I'd like to thank the CIA and NSA for their incompetence in this matter -- if they were properly vetting their employees/contractors we would not know the depths of surveillance that each and every citizen of the world is a target of.

It's a bit of a mixed bag. Snowden probably isn't the only party that slipped through the cracks via this, and many of those likely have malicious intent and access to nearly endless information about everyone.

Its a common thing for government agencies to remove a person from a position when they break the rules, the more critical the rule broken the more likely it is for the person to get removed from the position.

If true (and I take it with a rather large block of salt), I almost wonder if the CIA actually decided NOT to disclose this on purpose. Almost as if they knew the NSA was far overreaching itself, and that his actions were for the greater good rather than those actions of the NSA's.

Either way, the government seems to be painting Snowden as more a patsy of theirs with every passing day. A patsy that ended up backfiring on them in a bad way.

/conspiracy theory

I've always wondered if Snowden is either NSA policy in action, or if he has some secret angels on the inside.

I'd like to thank the CIA and NSA for their incompetence in this matter -- if they were properly vetting their employees/contractors we would not know the depths of surveillance that each and every citizen of the world is a target of.

I read this and I don't think "incompetence," I think: "Oh Christ, what is their end game?!"

More evidence that Snowden's efforts were premeditated espionage, and not motivated by the public good. He could have made good immediately with the information from the CIA - but instead, he persisted, gathering more information, secretly, trying to build a cache that he could use to manipulate the public in ways that would benefit him personally. Else, why quit his job at the CIA and take a higher paying one as a contractor? Certainly not for ethical reasons.

He actively worked to position himself in a place where he could get information he could use to damage the US's FCI efforts. The more I learn about this guy, the less I believe he shouldn't be sent to prison.

I guess I'm not there yet. As far as I can tell his releases have been confirmations about what we've already known.

1) Gov't siphons internet traffic and has little to no transparency about how it's used.2) Gov't siphons phone traffic and has little to no transparency about how it's used.3) We conduct intelligence gathering on our allies. (As they do on us).

The only questions for me is if what he did creates real change or if he ends up as just a footnote in history?

Maybe not what "we know" but, certainly, what many people suspected the government was already doing. There is a long history of state surveillance, both of their own people and others outside the state. For the US Govt to continue to so as part of the "war on terror" (or whatever name is given to it now) should have been no surprise. That the same government acts with contempt for basic human and constitutional rights, both domestically and overseas, often with the pretext of "security," is well-established.

What Snowden's disclosure does provide is specific evidence and details of what the US Govt and its allies were actively doing and how they are doing so. To a greater extent, one can move beyond conjecture and suspicion and, instead, definitively establish that "we know" what about this specific form of surveillance, what pseud-legal protections are in place, the involvement of many private corporations, what sorts of data is being gathered, and how it is being used. The EU, Brazil, China, and others now how evidence that they were subject to such surveillance and can respond with legislative, judicial, and diplomatic measures against the US, its allies, and participating corporations. Individuals and companies can now make more-informated decisions about how their data is managed and the forms of communication these chose to adopt. More so, these disclosures provide specific and concrete evidence that can enable people to have a meaningful (and hopefully constructive) discourse what these governments are doing.

I'm hopeful what was disclosed will significantly contribute to real and meaningful change.

Very interesting. Snowden gets a pass because his supervisor failed to enforce the rules (with TS-SCI any thing like accessing unauthorized files is supposed to get you in some trouble). And Bradley Manning got a free pass and kept his clearance because his supervisors and commanders failed to follow regulations.

Tell me again why the supervisors and commanders still have jobs.

Seems to suggest to me that such violations are fairly commonplace and a violation here or there is not considered sufficient grounds for disciplinary action.

In other words, if they ran out everybody who broke regs, they'd be critically shortstaffed.

If true (and I take it with a rather large block of salt), I almost wonder if the CIA actually decided NOT to disclose this on purpose. Almost as if they knew the NSA was far overreaching itself, and that his actions were for the greater good rather than those actions of the NSA's.

Either way, the government seems to be painting Snowden as more a patsy of theirs with every passing day. A patsy that ended up backfiring on them in a bad way.

/conspiracy theory

So, your theory is that the CIA let him go to reign in the NSA's abuse? For starters, it doesn't seem that they knew his intent was to leak to the public, and thus create this debate. Secondly, I doubt they wanted national intelligence agencies to come under fire. I could see them doing this on purpose, but I would think it was more a 'Fuck the NSA' choice due to rivalry than some convoluted move to benefit the public.

Well, I tried to imply that they were going for the 'Fuck the NSA' angle myself, but apparently that got lost in the translation somewhere. But yeah, basically.